"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." ~ Vance Packard

Comments

"...But this raises a larger question: Can a free society be built or sustained on a culture of picking and choosing who earns the privileges of life?..."

I posted a reply to one of the comments. It will never see the light of day. Not on Independent Institute, it won't.

Essentially I observed that most libertarian writers' approaches are from the mentality that anarchy is really not possible at all, that somebody or somebodies will need to "build or sustain" the anarchist "society". Deep down they're all managers and controllers at heart.

Then, when sex or abortion are the topic, they'll commence arguing about "rights" -- does a fetus have a "right" to life??? etc etc etc. Then I quoted the late Delmar England's take on "rights":

'...The reality is that any human individual can believe whatever he/she wishes and take any action within his/her capacity. “Right”? Permission? With permission comes command. With command is the external ownership premise. “Rights” are a contradiction of individual identity, hence, anti-individual and anti-freedom. This is why in practice, “rights” (a version of “God intended”) become “bestowed privilege” at the point of a gun...'

Quoting England's stuff will automatically get one dismissed from tangential "libertarian" sites -- even those who espouse "anarchy".

I am father of 7, grandpa of (soon) 25, and a great grandpa. I'm as mixed up on the sex issue as any one of you. Hard to admit when one is nearing 80.

But the commenter, responding to the "abortion" issue, stated he didn't think an unwanted fetus inside a mama's tummy had "rights". I agree. But that begs the question: are psychopaths acting under the guise of "government" able to bestow "rights"??? I mean, common, guys and gals -- they are the most egregious murders in the history of mankind.

S/he (fetus) is totally a ward of Mom. But so are most 3 year-olds. And even many if not most 5 year-olds. Does a parent have the "right" to take the life of a 3 year-old? Yes they do. "Should" they? That's a different question entirely.

I like to think I would willingly lay down my withered old agnostic life if it became necessary to prevent mortal harm to a child -- your child or mine.

I also believe I am willing to sacrifice my life to prevent your children from becoming our children. I sincerely hope that is true. Because it is likely.